Research on Closed-Loop Supply Chain Decision Making of Power Battery Considering Subsidy Transfer under EPR System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper integrates the ERP system and government subsidies into a three-stage CLSC of power batteries and formulates the problems under the Stackelberg game framework. The analytical results regarding the optimal sales volume, prices, recycling volume, and corresponding profits are obtained for the different subsidy scenarios. The paper is well-written in general and the results are of practical value, which may be useful for policymakers. However, in my opinion, the manuscript can be improved further by considering the followings,
1) Although three streams of literature that are closely related to this study have been discussed in the literature review section, the existing research gaps and contributions of this paper are not clear to the readers. Thus, the CLSC models with different supply chain structures and subsidy strategies are to be considered in a table for a comparative study.
2) Are the hypotheses mentioned in section 3.2 the model assumptions? If so, please use the term assumptions instead of hypotheses. In addition, are all the assumptions realistic? Please provide some references or justifications for them.
3) It seems the proposed four models only differ in the subsidy mode. Some clarifications might be needed in the paper.
4) It would be more clear and readable to put the equilibrium results (e.g., sales volume, prices, recycling volumes, etc) in a table for each model, followed by the discussions/observations for the results.
5) The proofs can be distributed to the appendix at the end of the paper, while only keeping the main results in the main body of the paper.
6) The discussions on the comparisons of the four CLSC models may be necessary in section 4 of Model and Analysis. For example, what is the relationship between optimal recycling volumes in the four models?
7) The impacts of the key cost parameters on the model results need to be investigated in the numerical studies if possible.
8) The following recent literature needs to be included in the manuscript,
Zheng, B., Chu, J. and Jin, L., 2021. Recycling channel selection and coordination in dual sales channel closed-loop supply chains. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 95, pp.484-502.
Liu, C.Y., Wang, H., Tang, J., Chang, C.T. and Liu, Z., 2021. Optimal recovery model in a used batteries closed-loop supply chain considering uncertain residual capacity. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 156, p.102516.
Sun, Q., Chen, H., Long, R., Li, Q. and Huang, H., 2022. Comparative evaluation for recycling waste power batteries with different collection modes based on Stackelberg game. Journal of Environmental Management, 312, p.114892.
9) Only numbers are shown for the in-text citations, please check. In addition, the references are not listed in the alphabetical order of the authors' last name, please correct it.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Referees:
Thank you for your letter and for the referee’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Research on Closed-loop Supply Chain Decision-making of Power Battery Considering Subsidy Transfer Under EPR System" (sustainability-1892147). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Revised portion are included in the revised manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Below please find our detailed response to reviewer. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the referee’s comments are as following:
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research paper is interesting and may contribute into the literature. However, I have following comments for the improvement:
- Generally, the abstract of paper is based on research aim/purpose, research method, and key findings. Abstract of this paper is well written but it is required to highlight the key findings of the study.
- First section need to be expand further to cover all the critical aspects of the topic. I suggest authors to include the circular economy, green practices in supply chain and discussed the environmental aspect of closed-loop supply chain. Following are the articles, which will help to enrich the quality of this draft:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101942
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113418
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158479
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2979
- Literature review, in my point of view is weak, which required to improve and strengthen. Author(s) need to cite more latest researches in the relevant field to provide an up-to-date picture of work.
- Results and discussion section: The paper presented and explained all the key findings but they did not discuss the findings with the help of previous published papers. Author(s) discussed their results very well but in a scientific paper, it is required to cover all the aspect and provide and cite the similar work of other researchers. I think author(s) need to polish this section, which will help to further highlight the researchers' work.
- Conclusion section is insufficient. Also, authors required to expand the policy implications according to their objectives and aim of the study.
- Further, author(s) should check the grammatical and english errors. I suggest author(s) to proof-editing to the entire manuscript, it will significantly help to improve English language.
- During review, I noticed that some references are not cited in the text and also some papers cited in the text but author(s) probably forgot to provide their references. Please recheck your entire references and citations.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Referees:
Thank you for your letter and for the referee’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Research on Closed-loop Supply Chain Decision-making of Power Battery Considering Subsidy Transfer Under EPR System" (sustainability-1892147). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Revised portion are included in the revised manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Below please find our detailed response to reviewer. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the referee’s comments are as following:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript addresses an important issue, but there are several concerns that should be overcome to make it publishable.
1) The references in the text are not addressed properly: a number in the text confuses the reader. Please, use square brackets to enclose the references.
2) In the introduction is said: China will retire 40 more than 200,000 tons (about 25 GWh) of power batteries from NEVS by 2020.
Later, in the literature review: China's power battery retirement volume has already reached 20 GWh by 2020,
Compare this sentence with the one in Introduction.
3 - “[…] this paper divides the recycled power batteries into two types.
The first power batteries 215 are those with less than 80% capacity and can be directly reused, […]
The power batteries of type 2 can be recycled for precious metals, which are generally physically intact and easily recycled for precious metals.”
What is the distinction between type 1 and type 2 batteries?
The last sentence can be simplified.
4 - The model proposed seems a bit complex and expensive: it demands the retailers to invest in human resources, equipment and facilities to receive, test, store and deliver batteries to the vehicle manufacturer. Wouldn’t it be better to foresee battery delivering centres to handle these procedures?
5 - Hypothesis 2. Remanufactured power batteries are the same quality as new power batteries and are sold at the same price.
Are there evidences that this hypothesis is reasonable? How far or for what fraction can we assume the remanufactured battery has the same quality as a new one? If a consumer is asked to choose between a new or a remanufactured battery for the same price, what will be his choice?
6 - Hypothesis 3. Assumptions are made on the recycling of used batteries: firstly, 4S shops. What is a 4S shop?
7 - Hypothesis 5. The proportion of type 1 power batteries in the recycling process is α.
This is not a hypothesis but only a variable or parameter definition. It would be a hypothesis if α was a number and the proportion could be defined equal or above that value.
8 - Where in the numerical analysis do the authors use a definite value of α?
Author Response
Dear Editors and Referees:
Thank you for your letter and for the referee’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Research on Closed-loop Supply Chain Decision-making of Power Battery Considering Subsidy Transfer Under EPR System" (sustainability-1892147). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Revised portion are included in the revised manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Below please find our detailed response to reviewer. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the referee’s comments are as following:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript developed various CLSCM models, analysing economic factors and rate of recycling using the extended producer responsibility system, and outlining the government's role in driving CLSC practices. This is an interesting piece of work, and is in line with the Sustainability journal's aim and scope. However, there are a number of significant areas that are required to be addressed by the authors, prior to consideration for publication:
There is a major emphasis on the 'Chinese' region throughout the manuscript, which is of concern. Without any doubt, China is an important region, and is a key player for sustainable development. On the other hand, a research manuscript should adopt a global perspective to issues (and not regional). Stemming from this perspective, are there similar works conducted in other regions in this research domain (CLSCM of power batteries)? Why are the authors focussing on China specifically? What are the global contributions and implications of this research? What are the implications for regions where governments may not be so involved in such CLSC decisions? These need to addressed throughout the manuscript via a major overhaul of the manuscript.
The research gap being addressed is required to be articulated and discussed more clearly in the Intro. section. Please refer to extant works more specifically, and develop the research gap present in the current body of knowledge.
A table to demonstrate all extant and similar works in the literature review section will increase impact and help clarify the similarities and contributions of this research paper to the literature, and will anchor this work to the extant literature.
The hypothesis statements in section 3 are required to be underpinned by sources from the literature.
The findings and implications are required to be reviewed against extant CLSCM literature, in the form of a Discussion.
Please acknowledge and discuss the limitations of your research (you are only considering a few economic and environmental parameters in your model), and outline future research directions.
The in-text references MUST be written in paranthesis (i.e. [1]) as per the journal requirements.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Referees:
Thank you for your letter and for the referee’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Research on Closed-loop Supply Chain Decision-making of Power Battery Considering Subsidy Transfer Under EPR System" (sustainability-1892147). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Revised portion are included in the revised manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Below please find our detailed response to reviewer. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the referee’s comments are as following:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am satisfied with the revisions.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article is ready for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised manuscript can be accept for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have fully taken on board the reviewer comments and have now significantly improved their manuscript, as per the reviewer comments. I congratulate the authors.
